I received information on yet another company included in the trigger lawsuit. Mossberg attorneys filed suit against MechArmor Defense Systems, Inc of Wolfeboro NH. The suit is the same alleging infringement on the trigger patent owned by Mossberg. A copy of the lawsuit filing is included below.

There is another matter I would like to address and that is the anger expressed in some of our comments as well as those directed towards CMC directly by way of email, text messages and phone calls. Let me clarify CMC’s position in this legal battle and that is very simply they have no financial interest in these lawsuits.They were also unaware these suits were being filed. I spoke to the owner of CMC by phone and asked her if it was true that they have received death threats directed toward employees of the company. Thank heavens they have not but they have been inundated with very inappropriate and foul communication possible blaming CMC for the lawsuits. The owner of CMC simply stated they have no position on these lawsuits and this situation is between those companies being sued and Mossberg and has nothing to do with CMC.

Let me make this clear when the current owners purchased CMC from Chip McCormick they sold the rights to the standard drop in trigger system but not the flat trigger model. CMC also pays royalties to Mossberg to manufacture the original trigger! There are also two additional companies that pay royalties to Mossberg. I was asked not to mention those two companies names since I had no intention of contacting them. All three companies have been paying royalties since Mossberg purchased the patent.

AS promised the current filing against Mech Armor is just below. How many more suits will there be? Only time will tell.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
O.F. MOSSBERG & SONS, INC. ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.
)
v. ))
MECHARMOR DEFENSE )
SYSTEMS INC. ))
MAY 26, 2016
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., through its attorneys, hereby alleges:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. (“Mossberg”) is a corporation, organized under the
laws of the state of Connecticut, having a principal place of business at 7 Grasso Avenue, North
Haven, CT 06473.
2. On information and belief, Defendant MechArmor Defense Systems Inc. d.b.a. Mech
Defense (“Defendant”), having a principal place of business at 34 S. Main Street, Wolfeboro, NH
03894.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States,
including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1338(a).
5. On information and belief, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court
because Defendant sells and distributes the accused infringing products throughout the United
States and specifically to residents of Connecticut via retail locations and via an Internet site,
http://mechdefense.com/.
6. On information and belief, Defendant regularly solicits and conducts business in
Connecticut and/or derives substantial revenue fromthe infringing products provided to businesses
and residents of Connecticut. Connecticut businesses (i.e., retail locations) offer to sell those
products. Connecticut residents purchase those infringing products from those Connecticut
businesses or directly from Defendant. Accordingly, both jurisdiction and venue are proper in this
court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
– 2 –
FACTS
7. Mossberg is a manufacturer of firearms (e.g., shotguns) and related items. Mossberg sells
its firearms both in the United States and internationally.
8. Mossberg is the Assignee and owner of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Patent. 7,293,385
B2, entitled “MODULAR TRIGGER GROUP FOR FIREARMS AND FIREARM HAVING A
MODULAR TRIGGER GROUP” (“the ‘385 patent”), issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) on November 13, 2007, and subsequently reexamined by the USPTO. A copy
of the ‘385 patent, as originally issued, is attached as Exhibit A.
9. The ‘385 patent basically describes a modular drop-in trigger assembly (a.k.a. “trigger
group module” or “drop-in trigger”) which can be substituted for an existing trigger assembly
within a lower receiver of a firearm, such as a semiautomatic rifle (“AR”). Instead of fumbling
with multiple trigger components, a person can drop in the patented modular trigger assembly and
attach it to the firearm by two of the firearm’s existing pins.
10. The ‘385 patent fully describes and illustrates a preferred embodiment of the patented
modular trigger assembly. That embodiment comprises: a module housing; two hollow modular
pins having opposite ends mounted within two pairs of aligned holes in opposing sidewalls of the
housing; and the firearm’s trigger group components (e.g., a trigger and a hammer) mounted on
the modular pins, inside the housing, for rotation about those modular pins. Upon placing the
drop-in trigger between two sidewalls of a lower receiver, two other pins (e.g., the two existing
pins mentioned in Paragraph 9 above) are inserted through the following aligned holes: a pair of
holes in each of the receiver sidewalls; and the two hollow modular pins.
11. Each modular trigger assembly can have a different “trigger pull force” (i.e., the amount of
force it takes for a shooter to pull back the trigger). Therefore, a user can substitute a different
modular trigger assembly if the shooter desires to have a different trigger pull. Different trigger
pulls are used, for example, in target shooting and hunting.
12. The USPTO has reexamined the ‘385 patent multiple times, pursuant to requests by Timney
Triggers, LLC and/or its affiliate, Timney Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, “Timney”).
13. On August 20, 2014, the USPTO issued Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. 7,293,385
C1 (copy attached as Exhibit B) which concluded a first ex parte reexamination which Timney
had requested.
14. By that certificate, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of issued Claims 1-9 in the ‘385
patent; determined to be patentable additional Claims 11-15, which Mossberg presented during the
first ex parte reexamination; and canceled Claim 10 in the ‘385 patent.
15. On August 27, 2015, a three-person panel – all Patent Examiners who specialize in
reexaminations at the USPTO – issued an Office Action (copy attached as Exhibit C) during a
second ex parte reexamination, which Timney had requested.
16. In that Office Action, the panel: determined to be patentable issued Claims 3, 7 – those
claims appear in U.S. Patent 7,293,385 B2 (Exhibit A); determined to be patentable additional new
Claims 11-15, which Mossberg presented during the reexaminations; and rejected original Claims
2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 – those claims also appear in U.S. Patent 7,293,385 B2 (Exhibit A).
– 3 –
17. Claims 11-15, which the panel determined to be patentable, appear on pages 5-10 in an
Amendment (copy attached as Exhibit D) which Mossberg filed on July 22, 2015.
18. Mossberg has canceled Claims 1, 2, 4 and 10, shown in U.S. Patent 7,293,385 B2 (Exhibit
A), during the reexaminations.
COUNT 1 – INFRINGEMENT OF
U.S. PATENT NO. 7,293,385
19. Mossberg re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
1-18.
20. Defendant has been and/or is directly infringing and/or inducing infringement of and/or
contributorily infringing the ‘385 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or
selling in the United States, specific modular trigger assemblies (for firearms) that are covered by
the ‘385 patent.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendant manufactures and sells, among other things, a
specific line of modular trigger assemblies (a.k.a. “drop in trigger”) for AR-15 rifles. Defendant
uses an “Armor Helmet” logo on each trigger. Defendant also identifies these triggers by RJ 3/0
Triggers on its website.
22. Mossberg has compared an actual modular trigger assembly (i.e., a Rough Justice 3/0
Drop-in Match Trigger for AR Trigger) from Defendant and believes that trigger falls within the
scope of at least Claims 3, 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the ‘385 patent.
23. Upon information and belief, the rest of Defendant’s above identified line of drop-in
triggers for AR-15 rifles falls within the scope of at least Claims 3, 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the ‘385
patent.
24. Defendant’s use, and/or offer for sale and/or sale of its above-identified modular trigger
assemblies has not been under license or authority from Mossberg.
25. Defendant’s activities constitute direct infringement and/or contributory infringement of
one or more claims of the ‘385 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
26. As a direct result of each Defendant’s infringement of the ‘385 patent, Mossberg has
suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in an amount to be established at trial; and Defendant
has obtained ill-gotten profits in an amount to be established at trial. In addition, Mossberg has
suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
27. Upon information and belief, Defendant had actual knowledge of the ‘385 patent before
engaging in its infringing activity. Despite such actual knowledge of Mossberg’s ‘385 patent,
Defendant has continued to use, offer for sale and/or sell the infringing products in the United
States, including in Connecticut. Defendant’s infringements are therefore deliberate and willful
and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
– 4 –
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
28. WHEREFORE, Mossberg prays for relief as follows:
a. for a judgment declaring Defendant has infringed Mossberg’s ‘385 patent;
b. for a judgment awarding Mossberg compensatory damages as a result of
Defendant’s infringement of Mossberg’s ‘385 patent, together with interest and costs, and
in no event less than a reasonable royalty;
c. for a judgment declaring Defendant’s infringement of Mossberg’s ‘385 patent has
been willful and deliberate;
d. for a judgment awarding Mossberg treble damages and pre-judgment interest under
35 U.S.C. § 284 as a result of Defendant’s willful and deliberate infringement of Mossberg’s
‘385 Patent;
e. for a judgment declaring this case is exceptional and awarding Mossberg its
expenses, costs and attorneys’ fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285;
f. for a grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining the
Defendant from further acts of infringement; and
g. for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Plaintiff O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.